#fortich

APRIL 24, 1998 MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:

On March 26, 1996, the Office of the President issued a decision converting a 144-hectare agricultural land to an agro-industrial area which resulted to a hunger strike staged by some alleged farmer-benefits. The incident paved the way for the reopening of the case despite the decision being already final and executory and thus, the issuance of the so-called “Win-Win Resolution.” Said resolution modified the decision converting only 44 hectares of the land in dispute to an agro-industrial area and the remaining thereof distributed to the farmer-benefits.

ISSUE:

Whether the final and executory decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution

RULING:

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed Win-Win Resolution.

The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principles must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be stuck down.